California employers received welcome news yesterday when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Senate Bill 399 (“SB 399), which restricted mandatory employer meetings concerning political and religious matters, including union organizing.
As CDF previously reported, SB 399 (which took effect January 1, 2025) prohibits employers from disciplining or otherwise taking adverse action against employees who refuse to attend employer-sponsored meetings concerning political or religious matters. The law was promptly challenged by three industry groups–California Chamber of Commerce, the California Restaurant Association, and the Western Growers Association–who argued that SB 399 violated employers’ First Amendment Rights and was preempted by federal labor law.
Yesterday, in California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the challengers were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim, affirming the lower court’s injunction against enforcement of the law.
A Return to Constitutional Law: Strict Scrutiny
For labor attorneys accustomed to navigating the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the Ninth Circuit’s decision offered them a trip back to law school Constitutional Law class—specifically, application of the “strict scrutiny” standard.
Under this familiar constitutional law standard, laws restricting speech based on its content are presumptively unconstitutional unless the government can establish that the restriction is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
The Ninth Circuit determined that SB 399 triggered strict scrutiny because it singled out employer communications based on both their content (political or religious matters) and the identity of the speaker (the employer).
California argued that the law regulated employer conduct rather than speech and was necessary to protect employees from being a “captive audience.” The Court rejected those arguments, concluding that the state’s captive-audience theory did not establish a compelling governmental interest sufficient to justify the content-based restriction.
Importantly, the Ninth Circuit did not reach the separate question of whether SB 399 is preempted by the NLRA.
What Does This Mean for California Employers?
For now, SB 399 remains unenforceable. However, the Ninth Circuit’s decision does not mean that California employers have an unrestricted right to require employees to attend meetings about union organizing.
As discussed in CDF’s prior coverage, the National Labor Relations Board’s 2024 decision in Amazon.com Services LLC separately held that mandatory employer meetings concerning unionization generally violated the NLRA. While current General Counsel, Crystal Carey, issued a memorandum identifying Amazon.com as precedent she seeks to reverse, the decision remains Board precedent unless and until it is actually overturned or modified.
Practical Takeaways:
- SB 399 remains blocked. California employers are not currently subject to enforcement of the statute's restrictions on mandatory political or religious meetings.
- Federal labor law remains a separate consideration. Employers should continue evaluating mandatory union-related meetings under the NLRB's Amazon decision.
- Consider voluntary meetings. Employers seeking to communicate their views on unionization should consider voluntary meetings and other lawful communication strategies while the federal legal landscape remains unsettled.
- Stay informed. Both the state and federal legal frameworks governing captive audience meetings remain subject to further developments.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling is a significant victory for employer free speech rights, but it does not completely resolve the legal uncertainty surrounding mandatory workplace meetings.
If you have questions about how to approach union organization activity, reach out to CDF’s Labor Management Relations team.
